Slashdot Mirror
Utah Bill Would Require IT Workers To Report Child Porn (ksl.com)
Mr.Intel writes: A Utah lawmaker wants computer technicians to face jail time if they don't immediately report child pornography they discover on someone's computer. The proposal would require computer technicians to report child pornography to law enforcement or a federal cyber tip line if they encounter the material, but they would not be required to go searching for it. If they find it and don't report it, they could be given up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. It would mirror laws already on the books in at least 12 other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Does this mean that if you are fixing someone's computer and they have an encrypted volume full of this that you never had any reason to look at, you are still liable later? What if someone brings you their PC and they just want an upgrade (say second HDD or new video card), are you liable for what they have in their personal directories at that point?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What percentage of IT people who discover child porn look the other way?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
This will discourage normal IT nosiness. This will make sure that more with such pictures get away without being detected.
Is that the intended consequence?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
A law requiring the automatic dismissal from employment of any police officer in Utah who fails to report criminal conduct by colleagues to the local district attorney.
Your attitude suggest that you might be resisting. Perhaps a tazing is in order.
I was doing a PC refresh project at a local hospital when my coworker transferred user data from the old PC to the network when he noticed some odd file names flashing on the status window. After the transfer got done, he checked the file names and discovered that the files contained child pornography. He informed the I.T. director, who informed security. That started a very uncomfortable process for everyone involved.
Security did a recorded interview with the coworker and I.T. director in the presence of the hospital legal counsel. Security then confiscated the hard drive from the old PC and the new PC from the desk without any notice to the employee. The employee freaked out for three days straight because he didn't have his computer with the incriminating content, couldn't do his job, and everyone from his management to I.T. to security couldn't tell him anything. Nothing screams like guilt than someone screaming, crying and running in the back hallways for hospital staff. He was quietly removed from his job as a tax accountant without the incident hitting the newspapers or landing in court.
The last thing the hospital wanted was a child pornography scandal just before the annual fundraiser.
In practice this is a minor and pointless change - almost anyone who sees evidence of child pornography will already be inclined to report it voluntarily if given an easy and anonymous way to do it.
The real point of the law is to strengthen the idea that people in non-law enforcement professions can be forced into acting as police. Next, teachers who hear students talk about violence are forced to report the student to the authorities. Librarians who lend out books about Islamic extremism must notify DHS.
It's a path to curtail civil liberties, and of course it starts with child pornography. Because who's for child abuse?
HR: Please complete your mandatory child pornography identification training before the end of the month .. if you get prosecuted, then you might sue us because we hadn't given you the required training to meet the legal requirements of you job. .. OK .. what does this training consist of?
Worker Bee: What?!?!?! Why do I have to do that?
HR: Because if you don't complete your training and you encounter child pornography and don't report then you could be subject to prosecution
WB: So I have to know what child pornography looks like, so that if I "accidentally" look at some image or video I will recognize it.
HR: Yep
WB: and if I don't?
HR: There'll be other consequence.
WB: Like what?
HR: Well
HR: And we can only employ fully trained staff.
HR: You do want to stay on staff don't you?
HR: So it's a win-win for everyone if you do the training.
WB: *sigh*
HR: Looking at child pornography.
WB: How the fuck is that even legal?
HR: Don't worry, all your training will be given through an FBI approved course.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The definition of a "computer technician"? Whaddabout when you install something on Uncle Frank's lappie at home?
We already do this, the law is more a formality than a change of any kind. Every company in this state will fire you on the spot if you fail to report child pornography. In terms of what constitutes "knowing about it," it's if you actually are exposed to child pornography while working on someone's computer. Moreover, if you do report it, you can get recompense for being sexually assaulted, so there's a bit of financial motivation to do so as well.
Also, when you call into Dell tech support, that's here, so be mindful of remote technicians too as they have to report anything they think might be child porn. Most companies here have a 0-tolerance policy where if you view pornography on your work computer (even at home), and you can't prove that it was a forcible exposure (like a banner ad on a regular site) then most will fire you instantly.
I'm looking forward to some poor sap in Utah going to jail because they didn't report a pic of a 17 year old girl. What happens if it's her laptop and she forgets something? The potential for abuse is epic, and prosecutes are always happy to put another notch in their belt.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And no, "You'll know it when you see it" isn't enough,
I foresee an uptick in cases of children being ripped from their parents because Mummy or Daddy took a picture of their child playing in the pool.
Not only that, define a "computer". Is an iPhone a computer? What about those electronic picture frames? A television? Televisions now have enough features, on board storage, and such that the distinction is getting foggy. A digital camera? Not a computer in common usage but it certainly contains the ability to gather, process, store, and output data.
If people fail to report child porn upon seeing it on a device not typically considered a "computer" could they be prosecuted under this law? What makes seeing child porn on a computer any different than, for example, seeing it on a Polaroid?
This is all ignoring the fact that it would be almost impossible to prove that someone did in fact see child porn on a digital device but failed to report it. If they did not report it then how would law enforcement prove that they even saw it?
Very stupid law, the people that created this law should be ashamed.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That law puts decision making burdens on the wrong people and there are no end of debatable cases.
The police department of a nearby city told an employer that the picture of a young boy in his underwear on an employee's computer was actionable.
On the other hand, if an "IT technician" gets too sensitive, people with bathtub photos of their kids are going to have their lives ruined.
Then there's the issue of whether it's even safe to report things. Right here on Slashdot, someone who runs a porn hosting business said that the first time they found a customer running underage porn, they contacted the authorities. The authorities then threatened to prosecute the hosting firm. When that firm finds child porn today they silently fire the customer and delete the content.
Incidences like this have and always will be about selective enforcement. There are a plenty of laws on the book, which people violate every day. It is just a matter of who gets prosecuted.
Back in the 1990's, one of the Kennedy's was accused of having sex with his kid's babysitter. For a while, this became a news story, only to disappear into the background.
When the government wants to make a example out of you, they just fabricate evidence to frame you. Look at Nixon and the case of the pumpkin papers. Evidence will be planted to make you look bad. This is especially useful against dissidence and anyone who disagrees with the state. After all, if you are not for us, you are for the "enemy".
The 10th.
Seastead this.
Who is this Utah Bill?
He's the Marvel version of Yosemite Sam.
#DeleteChrome
The GOP leadership allowed Florida's Mark Foley to chase Capital teenage Male Pages. They did NOTHING about it.
The Democrats also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
The Green Party people also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
The independents also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
In other words, people, regardless of party, allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
virus / malware / disk / etc scanning software can make it seem like a file was viewed.
Also what if in a sting a system per loaded with some CP gets wiped and there is no report?
Even leaving aside the undertones of Nightwatch-ian tyranny, this is just a very covertly nefarious law.
We already know that child porn includes pictures that you yourself took of yourself, while you are a minor. Most high school students have pictures on their devices that can be defined as child pornography, hell most parents have pictures on their devices that might be classified as child pornography. And now it has been made illegal to practice best judgement.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I mean, you would report sexual child abuse anyway, wouldn't you?
no, I don't have a sig
Yup, and what is he going to do with all that pornography?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Wiped? Nothing. You can wipe a disk without looking at the contents....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
With Big Data today it's easier to write a script.
Do we have to report cartoons too? What about furry hentai? Does a cartoon drawing of an anthropomorphic animal boy being forced to suck the tentacle of a squid monster equal child porn?
I'm pretty sure those making that bill have never been into the dark corners of teh IntarWeb.
If a person finds a collection of child porn, they should of course do the right thing. Having said that, I would think about a couple of things before calling the cops.
I would think about the guy who spent a couple of months in jail amd nearly spent years in prison over a DVD with 19-year old Lupe Fuentes. Lupe was a popular porn star ten years ago, with a wikipedia page about her, etc. A doctor and a police investigator both testified that the model in the video was "definitely" under age, when a five-second Google search would have told them she was 19 when that video was made.
The model, flew out to Puerto Rico to show her driver's license amd passport to the court, yet the defendant still was not released right away. I would not want to initiate a situation like that. Remember the doctor thought she was definitely underage, so I could make the same mistake.
I might also respond differently to finding a large, organized collection pf 8-10 year olds than I would to one picture that appeared to be about fifteen or sixteen. I imagine there might be some situation in which I would simply remind the person that child porn is felony carrying a hefty prison sentence, so they shouldn't go anywhere near it, or anything that might look like possible child porn.
And YOU are a f*cking moron, for thinking that prosecuting OWNERSHIP of a picture is legit. Child porn needs to focus on stopping the CREATORS of porn, not people who look at it. It's a religiously biased BS law for wanna-be do-gooders. No one gets whipped when you look at a picture, retard.
the only ones that were aware, were GOP top members. And they did not, and probably still do not, care when their own members are perverts and criminals.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How do they propose to prove that the IT Tech knew something not reported?
If I am working on a specific problem someone is having, I won't really look to see what image thumbnails are showing unless it's actually relevant to the problem. It's called being a professional.
The question is do the cops really know that (especially when they get a lot more headlines is they "don't know" that)? Professionalism in police work is in many ways the opposite of professionalism in IT. Do they know that the "un-missable" wallpaper on a user account is totally missable if I log in as Administrator to fix a driver problem?
It's intended to encourage hiring blind IT techs. Being blind is a convincing defense against having looked at child porn.
AS it seems that most of the ultra Mormons are all for marrying and abusing multiple children. Is the tide turning against the mormon church's death grip on Utah? Typically any laws that go against anything that the church condones is frowned upon and drummed out of legislation.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Arguably, existing mandatory reporting laws on child abuse and exploitation also apply to child porn: If a mandatory reporter sees child porn, he is arguably aware that child abuse has occurred and he has an obligation to report it.
I say "arguably" because there are good counter-arguments, including:
* Many if not all state-level US mandatory-reporting laws require that the abuse be happening in the jurisdiction of the state the mandatory reporter is in, which is usually not know-able from a photograph unless there are clear landmarks in the image such a window with a distinctive skyline showing in the photo
* Many if not all state-level US mandatory-reporting laws require that the abuse happened recently enough that the victim is still alive or is still actively being abused, which is also usually not know-able from a photograph unless there are clear indications of "recency" such as last month's new-hot-toy showing up in the photo
* With image-manipulation being as good as it is, if the image is very-low-quality a person could argue that "I sincerely believed it was a picture of a kid who was NOT being abused that was photo-manipulated to look like he was" or "I sincerely believed this was a foreign photo from decades ago doctored up to look like it was from Chicago last month" and arguably not longer fall under the mandatory-reporting laws.
By the way, in some US states, practically all adult residents are considered "mandatory reporters" for child abuse, not just those holding certain professional credentials.
Prediction:
In a decade or two, when computer can generate images of "people" that are so realistic that even an expert can't tell fact from fiction by just looking at the on-screen image with the naked eye, you will see specific applications of child-porn laws being challenged in courts on a case-by-case basis. The prosecutor's "a reasonable person would believe this was an actual photograph not a computer-generated image" argument will become less and less convincing over time and more and more people accused of child-porn related offenses will either be set free or prosecutors will decline prosecution because the burden of proof on them that it's real is just too high.
I predict that within my lifetime, countries like the USA whose constitutions protect computer-generated "fake child porn" that doesn't involve real victims will have a sea change:
1) Almost nobody in those countries will make or knowingly distribute real or suspected-to-be-real child porn (stupid child-raping parents/uncles/caregivers who get their jollies sharing their own "trophy photos" being the major exception)
2) In order to convict, prosecutors will have a burden to show that either the defendant knew or had some reason to believe the image involved an actual child besides what the image looked like.
And, sadly,
3) What real child porn that does circulate will be able to hide in among the mass of fake stuff since nobody will be able to prove it's not fake, emboldening some child-abusers who would otherwise be scared of arrest.
#1 and #3 will partially cancel each other out, so it's hard to say if there will be a net increase or a net decrease in victimization. My gut says it will be a net decrease.
These predictions may not come true if courts re-interpret the constitution so the "there must be a real victim in the image (or at least that the defendant believed there was)" idea is no longer a constitutional requirement for conviction. I'm not sure if such a re-interpretation is a good thing or a bad thing. There are good moral arguments on both sides of that question.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Clearly if you don't log in as that user (assuming the system logs bear that out), then you can't see the user's wallpaper. So presumably you'd be okay.
With that said... somebody setting child porn as his/her wallpaper? Really? That would take a special kind of stupid.... I mean sure, someone somewhere might do it someday, if only because two things are infinite and all, but....
And I thought I had a dim view of humanity....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
That's two more than the number of child-porn images most /. readers will see in a lifetime.
Well, I hope it is anyways.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The Green Party people also allowed him to, and they did NOTHING about it.
How many Greens are in Congress?
You assume that a cop (and/or a DA) who thinks his OS is either Firefox or Internet Explorer will know that and not cause me several really bad days and a stink that won't wash off.
It's worse than it sounds....all the comments are about what if you find it, could you be liable, etc etc etc. That's one side of it, but here's the other side of it:
But what if someone else claims you found child porn on a computer and then says you didn't report it? How do you prove that you didn't find something?
"He had that laptop for weeks and was digging around in it, looking at all the files and directories...how could he have not seen it? He MUST have seen it but didn't report it..."
What if someone borrows/steals/buys a PC from you, puts child porn on there and then "discovers" it...and then they go, "...it was his PC, how could he have not seen it?"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
most It people that come across child porn usually just copy it and say nothing. Often they use other computers at their workplace to store their child porn to avoid getting caught with it.
Don't be a sheep and get taken in by them. Learn their code words and recognize when they are making you their mule/patsy. Ever hear an IT guy saying he has to put your computer "on the domain"? That's just perv-speak for saying they are going to load it up with child porn.
You assume that a cop (and/or a DA) who thinks his OS is either Firefox or Internet Explorer will know that and not cause me several really bad days and a stink that won't wash off.
It has been rumored that during the Casey Anthony investigation and trial, the investigating authorities only submitted evidence of web-browsing history from Internet Explorer, and that there was only very minimal circumstantial evidence of searching for things that could be interpreted as criminal. After the trial and acquittal, supposedly, it was able to be demonstrated that evidence of browser history for Firefox existed that showed someone used the computer to search for techniques to dispose of a body, which was apparently not part of the Prosecution's case. With our Double Jeopardy laws unless it can be demonstrated that there was some kind of intentional illegal act on the part of law enforcement or prosecution it would not be possible to re-prosecute Anthony based on this omitted evidence.
That was a very high-profile murder trial, and if this rumor is accurate then they couldn't even get it right when it's literally a capital case with probably a significant budget for the investigation then I don't know that we can rely on them to get computer forensics right in other circumstances.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Maybe they don't like the concept of thoughtcrime.
It is again rather a pity that Orwell didn't live long enough to see the geek in full flight.
The crime is defined as the possession of child pornography. That is an act not a thought.
Not only what you said, but I could also see a civil lawsuit towards the IT person happening. Especially if the end user was a business person, someone accused of child pornography can still have their lives all jacked up. I doubt this law provides any indemnification for the IT people.
You assume "sensible" and "computer expert" are the same set. They are not.
What, do you not?!
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
This highlights the need for protection for those making the discovery and reporting and not adding threats from another source.
In my experience the worst offenders for b
Remember, kids, we have a legal system, not a justice system.
> Those who use such a law as a tool for revenge or false incrimination or gaining the upper hand on political rivals or discrediting whistleblowers should be prosecuted 10X more severely than the holders (but not producers) of the "pornography" whether actual or perceived.
A FALSE accusation is obviously wrong. Heck, "thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of THE ten rules.
Further, I find that when I think I'm doing the right thing, it is often helpful to check my motives. On the other hand, you say reporting it to "gain the upper hand on political rivals" is ten times as bad as doing it. So if the Clinton campaign found out that Bernie Sanders is big into buying child porn, and they didn't sweep it under the rug, Clinton would be more guilty for reporting it than Sanders is for buying child porn? I'm not so sure.
That is not true in the US. There must be an identified victim.
Now on the other hand, you could write a paragraph of how you "plan" to commit a crime that you really have no intention of carrying out. That could be construed as conspiracy and you could be placed in jail for life for such an action. Or shipped to Cuba as an enemy combatant and not even see a trial.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
enough, to take your computer in for repair, and have kiddie porn on it, then you deserve what you get!
IT workers routinely do this anyways. What this simply does is punish the computer techs instead of the sex offenders. Now EVERY tech is required to "snoop" through ALL the personal files of every client they get, in order to protect themselves. That's EVERY personal file, Mr Politician!. Including that date rape case of yours you hush hushed away before you won the byelection. Or that iffy financial deal you made that could have cost you the nomination. Or... get the drift yet? Sometimes I think politicians are filled with shit for brains if they actually support ths!
in your local and state politics.
It's not my job to decide what is and is not child pornography. It's not my job to make ANY determination about the content clients have.
Cute pictures of a clients own young children that were once considered normal are now considered pornographic. Cartoons can even be considered "child pornography". Back when people actually took film to get it developed people were arrested for art deemed "pornographic". Legislators and politicians that seek to make me complicit in their crimes do not have my respect or support. They are the enemy.
Journalists once scrutinized unpopular issues, but not so much any longer. Yea, child pornography exists, but it's not something I want anything to do with, no matter how much you might try and force me to. I'm all for people who hurt and exploit ids being prosecuted. I'm also all for Prosecutors and cops and DA's that railroad people who have done nothing wrong and using them to further their own careers being permanently barred from public service after being prosecuted and imprisoned for abusing their power and authority. We let too many crooks and liars have too much control int his country.
Are we also required to report on our neighbors who are Jewish circa 1930's Nazi Germany?
I am now reminding you that child porn is a serious felony.
Are you saying I'm an accessory to your possession of child porn?
The USC accessory statute requires three things for a person to be an accessory:
Knowledge of the criminal conduct.
Encouraging or assisting the conduct.
Mens rea (guilty intent)
I don't have knowledge that you've done anything illegal. The Lupe case I cited reminds us that I still wouldn't know if I had seen you in possession of -questionable- material.
Reminding someone that it is a serious felony is DISCOURAGING the conduct, precisely the opposite of what defines am accessory.
Mens rea is perhaps best illustrated by an example. It was unlawful in a certain state to have sex with a teenager under a certain age (16, I think) - even if both parties were the same age. A doctor prescribed birth to a fifteen year old. Ruling: although the doctor knew that his action would facilitate unlawful activity, his intent was to protect the patient from unwanted pregnancy. No guilty intent, therefore he was not an accessory. Although some criminal acts don't require mens rea, accessory always does.
My post was missing a word. The doctor prescribed birth control for the 15 year old. Because there was no criminal intent on his part, he was not an accessory.